|
On September 14 2010 06:02 Garaman wrote:
loooooooooooooooooooooooool =)
not to mention, the most recent european tounrey, i think 90% of the participants are terran too
Cool, Terran is the most common race, thanks for those great statistics.
Also, As many others have mentioned, It's know about where you win, it's what you win. There is a reason why alot of players don't bother with the 50$ tourney with 512 players.
|
as stupid as these battle net top 100.nothing more to add here
User was warned for this post
|
On September 14 2010 06:07 NuKedUFirst wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2010 06:02 Garaman wrote:
loooooooooooooooooooooooool =)
not to mention, the most recent european tounrey, i think 90% of the participants are terran too Cool, Terran is the most common race, thanks for those great statistics. Also, As many others have mentioned, It's know about where you win, it's what you win. There is a reason why alot of players don't bother with the 50$ tourney with 512 players.
There's obviously a reason why Terran is the most played race, sheesh. And care to elaborate how it's relevant whether or not players bother with $50 tournies? It's not as if any of the names in there aren't considered top tier caliber atm.
|
On September 14 2010 05:32 MrCon wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2010 05:30 3clipse wrote:
It's totally balanced guys! Statistics? High level testimonials? These things mean nothing! you mean stats like terran vs protoss = 50.3% win and terran vs zerg = 50.4% win ? (from sc2ranks) Or stats like http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Winnings?
There are way more reasons for these numbers to be illegitimate in terms of balance than for the ones that prompted this thread.
1. The matchmaking system obscures the mu win percentages. The zerg opponents are drawn from the much smaller pool of zergs that can compete with high level Terrans (and, to a lesser extend, Protoss). The fact that your numbers are close to 50% says something positive about the effectiveness of the matchmaking system, not of overall game balance.
2. Because of the smaller ammount of zergs in the overall player pool, zergs have (on average) played many more ZvTs and ZvPs than the other races play PvZs and TvZs. In other words, Protoss and Terran play more mirrors when matched randomly, making Zergs more experienced vs their counterpart in non-mirror matchups. We should be seeing this translate into an advantage for zerg players. We haven't.
3. Although Zerg is underrepresented in Diamond (23.78% of players as opposed to 30.69% for Terran and 35.50% for Protoss), they are overrepresented on Teamliquid (http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=150273), the premier competitive Starcraft community. It it wasn't obvious already that the average tler is of a much higher calibre than the average sc2 player, other tl polls have confirmed that more of us are in Diamond than any other league (wheras only 5% of the population as a whole is). Again, this should skew the competitive scene towards Zerg dominance. This hasn't happened.
Many top players have attested to the underpowered nature of zerg. There are, of course, some who disagree, but actions and results speak louder than words. Very few choose to play zerg and even less win. If you, or any other Terrans are still skeptical about Zerg being underpowered, I suggest you play them yourself and see how far you can get on the ladder. I will absolutely admit that no single statistic is enough to declare imbalance; it takes a combination of indicators, the most important of which you can merely feel from playing a lot of games at a high level.
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
the problem with that is the assumption that x diamond zerg user has some knowledge of making drones & doesn't just baneling bust or roach rush or get lucky with a stupid one-base spire every game. 99% of the losses I see zergs complain about on this forum have been easily attributable to poor macro rather than ANYTHING that points to imbalance.
When talking about BALANCE, the benchmark is perfection. Whether something is "harder" or "easier" is completely irrelevant.
|
Calgary25963 Posts
On September 14 2010 06:18 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:
When talking about BALANCE, the benchmark is perfection. Whether something is "harder" or "easier" is completely irrelevant.
I don't think that's fair. If something is balanced for Flash and Jaedong only, but is 75:25 at top diamond levels, don't you think there's a problem?
Although the skillsets are difference, I still think every race should take a similar amount of subjective skill / effort / whatever you want to call it.
|
|
|
On September 14 2010 06:18 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:
the problem with that is the assumption that x diamond zerg user has some knowledge of making drones & doesn't just baneling bust or roach rush or get lucky with a stupid one-base spire every game. 99% of the losses I see zergs complain about on this forum have been easily attributable to poor macro rather than ANYTHING that points to imbalance.
When talking about BALANCE, the benchmark is perfection. Whether something is "harder" or "easier" is completely irrelevant.
Only to an extent. I disagree with perfection. For example, say Terran's macro mechanic stayed as is, but Zerg's macro mechanic now suddenly required Zerg to inject larvae every 5s or the larvae would shrivel up and die before it pops out (Queen may need to nourish larvae, w/e). Perfect macro wouldn't affect the balance of the game at all, but there's such an unrealistic expectation from any player, including Jaedong, to be able to go back to the hatchery and inject larvae every 5s, especially during a battle. If you miss one inject you suddenly fall behind. If Terran only has to do it every 50 energy, and then can also use excess energy if it went over, you wouldn't say there's any balance issue? Of course an extreme for Zerg but the macro mechanic already plays this out to an extent.
|
Blizzard has already stated that they intend to balance the game at all levels of play and that they'll use statistics to determine which matchups need tuning. That's why there's a balance patch coming. I'm not sure what people are still arguing about. The game is imbalanced. It's a fact.
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
On September 14 2010 06:23 Chill wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2010 06:18 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:
When talking about BALANCE, the benchmark is perfection. Whether something is "harder" or "easier" is completely irrelevant. I don't think that's fair. If something is balanced for Flash and Jaedong only, but is 75:25 at top diamond levels, don't you think there's a problem? Although the skillsets are difference, I still think every race should take a similar amount of subjective skill / effort / whatever you want to call it.
Sort of. If something is merely "too difficult", there needs to be a streamlining process created that doesn't tip balance at the top level. That's a much more drastic and complicated change than if something is straight imbalanced. It's a step that should be taken after all other proposed imbalance have been eliminated, which is why the benchmark is perfection. I just want people to take what they read, and even their own game experience, with a grain of salt before they claim anything is actually imbalanced.
I agree that in a perfect world, with a perfectly balanced game, there should be very little variation in the effort necessary to perform these tasks. However, with Brood War as an example, perceptions of balance change drastically as the median skill level rises. It's dangerous to muck with balance simply because there seems to be a lot of Terrans in Diamond.
|
|
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
On September 14 2010 06:25 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2010 06:18 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:
the problem with that is the assumption that x diamond zerg user has some knowledge of making drones & doesn't just baneling bust or roach rush or get lucky with a stupid one-base spire every game. 99% of the losses I see zergs complain about on this forum have been easily attributable to poor macro rather than ANYTHING that points to imbalance.
When talking about BALANCE, the benchmark is perfection. Whether something is "harder" or "easier" is completely irrelevant. Only to an extent. I disagree with perfection. For example, say Terran's macro mechanic stayed as is, but Zerg's macro mechanic now suddenly required Zerg to inject larvae every 5s or the larvae would shrivel up and die before it pops out (Queen may need to nourish larvae, w/e). Perfect macro wouldn't affect the balance of the game at all, but there's such an unrealistic expectation from any player, including Jaedong, to be able to go back to the hatchery and inject larvae every 5s, especially during a battle. If you miss one inject you suddenly fall behind. If Terran only has to do it every 50 energy, and then can also use excess energy if it went over, you wouldn't say there's any balance issue? Of course an extreme for Zerg but the macro mechanic already plays this out to an extent.
Agreed, and that's a good example, but surely you can see how changing something as broad-reaching as a macro mechanic will force gigantic changes in gameplay for everyone, initiated because something is "too hard". It's still a competitive game, you know?
To explain that a bit: something like allowing Zerg players to stack vomits on a hatchery if they miss a few (similar to how P and T's energy-based macro mechanics work) seems like it wouldn't affect the 'top level' because a perfect player doesn't miss barfs, and it seems like a change that would more or less 'bring zerg up to par' for lesser players. However, such a drastic change to the mechanic would make Zerg play completely differently. They'd be hella broken! Yet, this is something I've seen suggested on these forums and the lack of utility of the queen in this regard compared to MULEs or Chrono Boost is heavily complained about here.
|
On September 14 2010 06:29 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:
It's dangerous to muck with balance simply because there seems to be a lot of Terrans in Diamond.
Nah, not if you do it just a little and don't do it just because there are many terrans in diamond, like the situation is now. Patch 1.1 doesn't change a lot balance wise and it doesn't really matter if we don't got total balance all the time since during the next 3 years we will see a ton of changes to the game from the expansions alone.
Also patches might give Blizzard more information on how the game should be fixed with the expansions allowing them to make a better job. Identifying what is missing for each race that can't be fixed in a minor balance patch is pivotal for making good expansions.
On September 14 2010 06:31 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:
To explain that a bit: something like allowing Zerg players to stack vomits on a hatchery if they miss a few (similar to how P and T's energy-based macro mechanics work) seems like it wouldn't affect the 'top level' because a perfect player doesn't miss barfs
Um, that would allow zerg to build 3 queens for his first hatch and then get 22 larvae per minute, not really comparable at all to what he said. What would work though would be to allow queens to stack larvae spawns on hatcheries like queue's, so if you had 100 energy you could put larvae for 3 minutes at once, that would make the macro mechanic more forgiving without imbalancing the game at higher levels at all. For the same reason as you don't queue units you shouldn't queue larvae since that energy would be better used for things like creep tumors but it would still be useful for new players.
|
Queens should be able to mine to the equivalent as 2-3 mules 
|
Calgary25963 Posts
On September 14 2010 06:29 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2010 06:23 Chill wrote:On September 14 2010 06:18 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:
When talking about BALANCE, the benchmark is perfection. Whether something is "harder" or "easier" is completely irrelevant. I don't think that's fair. If something is balanced for Flash and Jaedong only, but is 75:25 at top diamond levels, don't you think there's a problem? Although the skillsets are difference, I still think every race should take a similar amount of subjective skill / effort / whatever you want to call it. Sort of. If something is merely "too difficult", there needs to be a streamlining process created that doesn't tip balance at the top level. That's a much more drastic and complicated change than if something is straight imbalanced. It's a step that should be taken after all other proposed imbalance have been eliminated, which is why the benchmark is perfection. I just want people to take what they read, and even their own game experience, with a grain of salt before they claim anything is actually imbalanced. I agree that in a perfect world, with a perfectly balanced game, there should be very little variation in the effort necessary to perform these tasks. However, with Brood War as an example, perceptions of balance change drastically as the median skill level rises. It's dangerous to muck with balance simply because there seems to be a lot of Terrans in Diamond.
Okay I agree with that.
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
On September 14 2010 06:38 Klockan3 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2010 06:29 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:
It's dangerous to muck with balance simply because there seems to be a lot of Terrans in Diamond. Nah, not if you do it just a little and don't do it just because there are many terrans in diamond, like the situation is now. Patch 1.1 doesn't change a lot balance wise and it doesn't really matter if we don't got total balance all the time since during the next 3 years we will see a ton of changes to the game from the expansions alone. Also patches might give Blizzard more information on how the game should be fixed with the expansions allowing them to make a better job. Identifying what is missing for each race that can't be fixed in a minor balance patch is pivotal for making good expansions. Show nested quote +On September 14 2010 06:31 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:
To explain that a bit: something like allowing Zerg players to stack vomits on a hatchery if they miss a few (similar to how P and T's energy-based macro mechanics work) seems like it wouldn't affect the 'top level' because a perfect player doesn't miss barfs Um, that would allow zerg to build 3 queens for his first hatch and then get 22 larvae per minute, not really comparable at all to what he said.
I don't understand the first part of your post, you said "don't do it just because there are many terrans in diamond" and I said "It's dangerous to muck with balance simply because there seems to be a lot of Terrans in Diamond". Where is the disagreement? 
Yes, I realize its not a comparable example -_- Read his post, he says there's a problem in that Terran can just MULE at 67 energy instead of 50 and not really lose anything, whereas a Zerg missing a barf can be totally critical. The problem with that assessment is that the larva barf mechanic is far more complicated than a brief mineral boost, and allows far greater customization of economy, IE, when you get yer queens, HOW MANY (this should be a huge talking point for Zerg players and strangely it isn't!), when you barf, if you spread creep & how often, etc etc. You have to realize that while there is certainly a lot that can go wrong in all that, it's not necessarily a balance issue, and the incessant griping of Zerg players who have little to no concept of how to actually play with this mechanic is being blown way out of proportion (relevant to this thread). This is why you need to benchmark against perfection (IE, a Zerg player who properly uses these mechanics to solve various issues that arise in-game) and examine it from that perspective. It's also why blanket comparisons like "Terran's MULE vs the Queen" and attempting to 'keep them in line with each other' doesn't work. The Queen is far more complex than the MULE, and needs to be dealt with accordingly, which is once again where the perfect player comes in.
|
On September 14 2010 06:31 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2010 06:25 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 14 2010 06:18 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:
the problem with that is the assumption that x diamond zerg user has some knowledge of making drones & doesn't just baneling bust or roach rush or get lucky with a stupid one-base spire every game. 99% of the losses I see zergs complain about on this forum have been easily attributable to poor macro rather than ANYTHING that points to imbalance.
When talking about BALANCE, the benchmark is perfection. Whether something is "harder" or "easier" is completely irrelevant. Only to an extent. I disagree with perfection. For example, say Terran's macro mechanic stayed as is, but Zerg's macro mechanic now suddenly required Zerg to inject larvae every 5s or the larvae would shrivel up and die before it pops out (Queen may need to nourish larvae, w/e). Perfect macro wouldn't affect the balance of the game at all, but there's such an unrealistic expectation from any player, including Jaedong, to be able to go back to the hatchery and inject larvae every 5s, especially during a battle. If you miss one inject you suddenly fall behind. If Terran only has to do it every 50 energy, and then can also use excess energy if it went over, you wouldn't say there's any balance issue? Of course an extreme for Zerg but the macro mechanic already plays this out to an extent. Agreed, and that's a good example, but surely you can see how changing something as broad-reaching as a macro mechanic will force gigantic changes in gameplay for everyone, initiated because something is "too hard". It's still a competitive game, you know? To explain that a bit: something like allowing Zerg players to stack vomits on a hatchery if they miss a few (similar to how P and T's energy-based macro mechanics work) seems like it wouldn't affect the 'top level' because a perfect player doesn't miss barfs, and it seems like a change that would more or less 'bring zerg up to par' for lesser players. However, such a drastic change to the mechanic would make Zerg play completely differently. They'd be hella broken! Yet, this is something I've seen suggested on these forums and the lack of utility of the queen in this regard compared to MULEs or Chrono Boost is heavily complained about here.
Or instead of making Zerg macro easier, we could just add a cooldown to mule calldown of equivalent time it takes to regenerate 50 energy, or even 25 energy. Wouldn't affect scan or supply cooldown, or balance for any pro terran player who doesn't miss mules. You could still drop 3 mules at once if you have three orbitals. Same thing with chrono, although it might actually hurt balance because it's often better to have warpgates in sync, and leaving 100 energy means you can chrono all 4 at once (although technically you'd have better results doing it individually, it'd be infinitely harder mechanically).
PS. I know you weren't necessarily proposing anything, it was my chance to throw in a balance suggestion since it's a related topic :o .
|
Nobody knows the real reason why there are so many Terrans out there, whether most people pick Terran or because the expansion is about Terran or whether it is the easiest to play or the strongest, or maybe people just like the look of them. Probably a combination of these.
But surely we can all agree that watching so many Terrans is boring? I would like each race to have equal representative in competitive match, plus TvT is rather uninteresting. Blizzard should equalize the game.
|
On September 14 2010 01:35 MaGic~PhiL wrote:
Terra is a bit better than the other races but I dont know how much the maps influence balance right now..
But the numbers are pretty sick
So... Did you actually shorten the word terraN to terra? or was it a typo o_O?
|
[B]On September 14 2010 06:48 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: I don't understand the first part of your post, you said "don't do it just because there are many terrans in diamond" and I said "It's dangerous to muck with balance simply because there seems to be a lot of Terrans in Diamond". Where is the disagreement? Yes, I realize its not a comparable example -_- Read his post, he says there's a problem in that Terran can just MULE at 67 energy instead of 50 and not really lose anything, whereas a Zerg missing a barf can be totally critical. The problem with that assessment is that the larva barf mechanic is far more complicated than a brief mineral boost, and allows far greater customization of economy, IE, when you get yer queens, HOW MANY (this should be a huge talking point for Zerg players and strangely it isn't!), when you barf, if you spread creep & how often, etc etc. You have to realize that while there is certainly a lot that can go wrong in all that, it's not necessarily a balance issue, and the incessant griping of Zerg players who have little to no concept of how to actually play with this mechanic is being blown way out of proportion (relevant to this thread). This is why you need to benchmark against perfection (IE, a Zerg player who properly uses these mechanics to solve various issues that arise in-game) and examine it from that perspective. It's also why blanket comparisons like "Terran's MULE vs the Queen" and attempting to 'keep them in line with each other' doesn't work. The Queen is far more complex than the MULE, and needs to be dealt with accordingly, which is once again where the perfect player comes in.
(See the bold part for my focus)
With all due respect, good sir, your logic is flawed. If you're benchmarking the game against perfection, then it wouldn't matter if Zerg players could stack larva or not because they would still be streaming out of hatcheries at the same rate, regardless of which mechanic was in play. If we're benchmarking against perfection, then you must allow larva barfs to stack because that's where the balance is taking place - at perfect larva production.
On a more substantive level, there are much, much more interesting things to balance the game around than punishing a Zerg for slight missteps on macro. Zerg already requires twice as many bases as it's opponent to maintain economic parity, so that in and of itself is enough to provide a competitive and more interesting challenge.
Zerg larva production is a poorly conceived, and altogether uninteresting mechanic. It challenges and punishes Zerg players in all of the WRONG ways.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
